OKC is 88-23 since the Perkins/Green trade. That winning percentage averages out to a 65 win season. Boston is 75-53 since trading Perkins. That comes out to a 48 win season. 36-26 with Green playing, which would be a 47 wins season. Boston is equally mediocre with or without green since Perk's departure.

One can argue that OKC's remarkable record is due to the Thunder not having the wimpy Jeff Green playing big minutes, or it's because their two stars are so dominant, but Perk has to get some credit for balancing this roster and adding leadership and toughness.

To me, wins and losses is what the NBA is all about. The Thunder have won big with Perk. He's a role player, but one that great teams need - someone to do the dirty work and someone to bring toughness to the court every night.

Perk isn't a big rebounder, but he is very good at boxing out. Perk isn't a good offensive player, but he's very good at setting picks so the good players can get easy shots. When you have two mega-stars like Westy and KD, that's what you need from one of your complementary players. Perk's physicality also allows the lithe Ibaka to do his thing without burdening him to do a lot of the boxing out and mucking up in the lane - something Perk did here for KG.

I'll take Perk on my team any day, even if he's making $8m a year. I don't care if he shoots a FT line airball. Big deal.

Howard put up some numbers on the Thunder last night, but was a -4 when on the court, and the Lakers lost (again). OKC bigs were outscored by Laker bigs by only 4 points.

Awesome post. TP. I dont think its any coincidence that OKC has that absurd record since Perk arrived. Obviously he isnt the main cause of it, but he is a huge piece. More so than a lot of people can come to realize.

OKC is 88-23 since the Perkins/Green trade. That winning percentage averages out to a 65 win season. Boston is 75-53 since trading Perkins. That comes out to a 48 win season. 36-26 with Green playing, which would be a 47 wins season. Boston is equally mediocre with or without green since Perk's departure.

One can argue that OKC's remarkable record is due to the Thunder not having the wimpy Jeff Green playing big minutes, or it's because their two stars are so dominant, but Perk has to get some credit for balancing this roster and adding leadership and toughness.

To me, wins and losses is what the NBA is all about. The Thunder have won big with Perk. He's a role player, but one that great teams need - someone to do the dirty work and someone to bring toughness to the court every night.

Perk isn't a big rebounder, but he is very good at boxing out. Perk isn't a good offensive player, but he's very good at setting picks so the good players can get easy shots. When you have two mega-stars like Westy and KD, that's what you need from one of your complementary players. Perk's physicality also allows the lithe Ibaka to do his thing without burdening him to do a lot of the boxing out and mucking up in the lane - something Perk did here for KG.

I'll take Perk on my team any day, even if he's making $8m a year. I don't care if he shoots a FT line airball. Big deal.

Howard put up some numbers on the Thunder last night, but was a -4 when on the court, and the Lakers lost (again). OKC bigs were outscored by Laker bigs by only 4 points.

And what is the Thunder's record without Perk playing? I don't think anyone needs to argue the fact that the Thunder's success is due to the dominance of their two stars, that much should be blatantly obvious. Perk has little to nothing to do with it.

It's astounding how much some fans continue to overvalue his contributions. Insinuating that trading Perk is the reason the Celtics have not been the dominant team they once were the past two seasons is just absurd.

The Thunder would probably give us Perry Jones 3 & or a 1st rounder to just take Perk back. He is not what they had hoped for! Not trying to be funny but they probably would be ok in their eyes just playing Thabeet & Collison & not having to deal with Perk's financial obligations.

OKC is 88-23 since the Perkins/Green trade. That winning percentage averages out to a 65 win season. Boston is 75-53 since trading Perkins. That comes out to a 48 win season. 36-26 with Green playing, which would be a 47 wins season. Boston is equally mediocre with or without green since Perk's departure.

One can argue that OKC's remarkable record is due to the Thunder not having the wimpy Jeff Green playing big minutes, or it's because their two stars are so dominant, but Perk has to get some credit for balancing this roster and adding leadership and toughness.

To me, wins and losses is what the NBA is all about. The Thunder have won big with Perk. He's a role player, but one that great teams need - someone to do the dirty work and someone to bring toughness to the court every night.

Perk isn't a big rebounder, but he is very good at boxing out. Perk isn't a good offensive player, but he's very good at setting picks so the good players can get easy shots. When you have two mega-stars like Westy and KD, that's what you need from one of your complementary players. Perk's physicality also allows the lithe Ibaka to do his thing without burdening him to do a lot of the boxing out and mucking up in the lane - something Perk did here for KG.

I'll take Perk on my team any day, even if he's making $8m a year. I don't care if he shoots a FT line airball. Big deal.

Howard put up some numbers on the Thunder last night, but was a -4 when on the court, and the Lakers lost (again). OKC bigs were outscored by Laker bigs by only 4 points.

TP.

Perk was never a guy that was going to start suddenly tearing up the box score, but he does tons of the little things that help good teams become great teams. Not to mention that nasty streak he has. Perk is an intangibles guy.

I've watched a lot of OKC for the past few years, and he's taken on a leadership role with those guys - he's taken on the responsibility of being the main communicator defensively for them. Ibaka gets a lot of the defensive praise because he puts up a ton of blocks, but Perk is the guy calling out rotations.

Honestly, sometimes I wish we could take Perk's mindset and demeanor and put it into Jeff Green's body. Jeff is the complete opposite of Perk - a guy who really has the physical/athletic ability and skill set to be a special player in this league, but doesn't do the little things or have "the fire in the belly".

OKC is 88-23 since the Perkins/Green trade. That winning percentage averages out to a 65 win season. Boston is 75-53 since trading Perkins. That comes out to a 48 win season. 36-26 with Green playing, which would be a 47 wins season. Boston is equally mediocre with or without green since Perk's departure.

One can argue that OKC's remarkable record is due to the Thunder not having the wimpy Jeff Green playing big minutes, or it's because their two stars are so dominant, but Perk has to get some credit for balancing this roster and adding leadership and toughness.

To me, wins and losses is what the NBA is all about. The Thunder have won big with Perk. He's a role player, but one that great teams need - someone to do the dirty work and someone to bring toughness to the court every night.

Perk isn't a big rebounder, but he is very good at boxing out. Perk isn't a good offensive player, but he's very good at setting picks so the good players can get easy shots. When you have two mega-stars like Westy and KD, that's what you need from one of your complementary players. Perk's physicality also allows the lithe Ibaka to do his thing without burdening him to do a lot of the boxing out and mucking up in the lane - something Perk did here for KG.

I'll take Perk on my team any day, even if he's making $8m a year. I don't care if he shoots a FT line airball. Big deal.

Howard put up some numbers on the Thunder last night, but was a -4 when on the court, and the Lakers lost (again). OKC bigs were outscored by Laker bigs by only 4 points.

TP.

Perk was never a guy that was going to start suddenly tearing up the box score, but he does tons of the little things that help good teams become great teams. Not to mention that nasty streak he has. Perk is an intangibles guy.

I've watched a lot of OKC for the past few years, and he's taken on a leadership role with those guys - he's taken on the responsibility of being the main communicator defensively for them. Ibaka gets a lot of the defensive praise because he puts up a ton of blocks, but Perk is the guy calling out rotations.

Honestly, sometimes I wish we could take Perk's mindset and demeanor and put it into Jeff Green's body. Jeff is the complete opposite of Perk - a guy who really has the physical/athletic ability and skill set to be a special player in this league, but doesn't do the little things or have "the fire in the belly".

TP right back at you.

A lot of fans bemoan Perk's contract, but he makes "only" $7.8m. That's not huge money for a starting center on a top team.

Presti is no dummy. If he didn't value Perk, he could have amnestied him and used that cap room to re-up Harden. He knows that the Thunder need a physical center to get out of the West.

OKC is 88-23 since the Perkins/Green trade. That winning percentage averages out to a 65 win season. Boston is 75-53 since trading Perkins. That comes out to a 48 win season. 36-26 with Green playing, which would be a 47 wins season. Boston is equally mediocre with or without green since Perk's departure.

One can argue that OKC's remarkable record is due to the Thunder not having the wimpy Jeff Green playing big minutes, or it's because their two stars are so dominant, but Perk has to get some credit for balancing this roster and adding leadership and toughness.

To me, wins and losses is what the NBA is all about. The Thunder have won big with Perk. He's a role player, but one that great teams need - someone to do the dirty work and someone to bring toughness to the court every night.

Perk isn't a big rebounder, but he is very good at boxing out. Perk isn't a good offensive player, but he's very good at setting picks so the good players can get easy shots. When you have two mega-stars like Westy and KD, that's what you need from one of your complementary players. Perk's physicality also allows the lithe Ibaka to do his thing without burdening him to do a lot of the boxing out and mucking up in the lane - something Perk did here for KG.

I'll take Perk on my team any day, even if he's making $8m a year. I don't care if he shoots a FT line airball. Big deal.

Howard put up some numbers on the Thunder last night, but was a -4 when on the court, and the Lakers lost (again). OKC bigs were outscored by Laker bigs by only 4 points.

And what is the Thunder's record without Perk playing? I don't think anyone needs to argue the fact that the Thunder's success is due to the dominance of their two stars, that much should be blatantly obvious. Perk has little to nothing to do with it.

It's astounding how much some fans continue to overvalue his contributions. Insinuating that trading Perk is the reason the Celtics have not been the dominant team they once were the past two seasons is just absurd.

What amazes me more is that fans still undervalue his contributions to his championship caliber teams.

OKC is 88-23 since the Perkins/Green trade. That winning percentage averages out to a 65 win season. Boston is 75-53 since trading Perkins. That comes out to a 48 win season. 36-26 with Green playing, which would be a 47 wins season. Boston is equally mediocre with or without green since Perk's departure.

One can argue that OKC's remarkable record is due to the Thunder not having the wimpy Jeff Green playing big minutes, or it's because their two stars are so dominant, but Perk has to get some credit for balancing this roster and adding leadership and toughness.

To me, wins and losses is what the NBA is all about. The Thunder have won big with Perk. He's a role player, but one that great teams need - someone to do the dirty work and someone to bring toughness to the court every night.

Perk isn't a big rebounder, but he is very good at boxing out. Perk isn't a good offensive player, but he's very good at setting picks so the good players can get easy shots. When you have two mega-stars like Westy and KD, that's what you need from one of your complementary players. Perk's physicality also allows the lithe Ibaka to do his thing without burdening him to do a lot of the boxing out and mucking up in the lane - something Perk did here for KG.

I'll take Perk on my team any day, even if he's making $8m a year. I don't care if he shoots a FT line airball. Big deal.

Howard put up some numbers on the Thunder last night, but was a -4 when on the court, and the Lakers lost (again). OKC bigs were outscored by Laker bigs by only 4 points.

And what is the Thunder's record without Perk playing? I don't think anyone needs to argue the fact that the Thunder's success is due to the dominance of their two stars, that much should be blatantly obvious. Perk has little to nothing to do with it.

It's astounding how much some fans continue to overvalue his contributions. Insinuating that trading Perk is the reason the Celtics have not been the dominant team they once were the past two seasons is just absurd.

What amazes me more is that fans still undervalue his contributions to his championship caliber teams.

And amazes me that fans think the Thunder are unhappy with what Perk is providing when everything you hear and the action you see out of there says the exact opposite.

The Perk haters are right. Perk stinks. He brings nothing to the game. Just look at his stats. All of that toughness and setting great picks and playing solid defense and getting under the skin of the opposing team and being a great locker room guy and a leader and so on is worthless and completely overrated. OKC is simply lucky to have such a great winning percentage with Perk as its starting center. I am sure if they could they would cut him tomorrow.

That's not a shot that you want Perk taking. It was no uglier than Courtney Lee's airball in crunch time, though.

Oh but it was because at least Lee's was from three- who airballs from 15 feet?

At least Perk is an exclusive post player and not a 3 pt specialist.

I thought being a post player required you to actually have a post game.

How do you score 10 points on over 60% shooting in 27 minutes for 78 games with no post game?

What's the point of having a discussion about Perk when half the people just want to come in and convince us they either have absolutely no understanding of basketball or show they've never seen Perkins play and want to prove people wrong with his stats?

OKC is 88-23 since the Perkins/Green trade. That winning percentage averages out to a 65 win season. Boston is 75-53 since trading Perkins. That comes out to a 48 win season. 36-26 with Green playing, which would be a 47 wins season. Boston is equally mediocre with or without green since Perk's departure.

One can argue that OKC's remarkable record is due to the Thunder not having the wimpy Jeff Green playing big minutes, or it's because their two stars are so dominant, but Perk has to get some credit for balancing this roster and adding leadership and toughness.

To me, wins and losses is what the NBA is all about. The Thunder have won big with Perk. He's a role player, but one that great teams need - someone to do the dirty work and someone to bring toughness to the court every night.

Perk isn't a big rebounder, but he is very good at boxing out. Perk isn't a good offensive player, but he's very good at setting picks so the good players can get easy shots. When you have two mega-stars like Westy and KD, that's what you need from one of your complementary players. Perk's physicality also allows the lithe Ibaka to do his thing without burdening him to do a lot of the boxing out and mucking up in the lane - something Perk did here for KG.

I'll take Perk on my team any day, even if he's making $8m a year. I don't care if he shoots a FT line airball. Big deal.

Howard put up some numbers on the Thunder last night, but was a -4 when on the court, and the Lakers lost (again). OKC bigs were outscored by Laker bigs by only 4 points.

And what is the Thunder's record without Perk playing? I don't think anyone needs to argue the fact that the Thunder's success is due to the dominance of their two stars, that much should be blatantly obvious. Perk has little to nothing to do with it.

It's astounding how much some fans continue to overvalue his contributions. Insinuating that trading Perk is the reason the Celtics have not been the dominant team they once were the past two seasons is just absurd.

What amazes me more is that fans still undervalue his contributions to his championship caliber teams.

And amazes me that fans think the Thunder are unhappy with what Perk is providing when everything you hear and the action you see out of there says the exact opposite.